Skip to main content

View Diary: Greenwald also echoes GOP talking points on Benghazi (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Right (11+ / 0-)

    Greenwald's transgression was not that he echoed GOP talking points. His 'transgression' was that he didn't echo Democratic partisan talking points, which is usually what gets him in trouble in the more tribal precincts.

    I wish we were talking about the later part of the segment when Greenwald exposed Maher's Islamophobia, pointing out that it is the decidedly non-Muslim nation, the United States, that's perpetrated the most violence worldwide in recent decades.

    It's funny. This diarist often blogs about Maher's show yet I've never seen him criticize Maher's bigotry. Easier, I guess, to focus on a guest who disagreed with, and embarrassed, Maher.

    •  I wish he would have said something about (5+ / 0-)

      Bush saying he felt "God was talking" to him about his illegal war on Iraq.

      •  oop (2+ / 0-)

        didn't realize there is, in fact, a post on this.

        •  Yeah, I mean, it's not like... (15+ / 0-)

          I didn't link that exact same diary in the very first sentence of this diary.

          Sheesh.

          I do transcripts of interesting Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert segments that are political in nature, and of Bill Maher's final New Rule.  Almost always, his final New Rule is something liberals and progressives will agree with 100%.  Does that mean I agree with him 100%?  Nope.  But does it mean I have to be a repetitive bore and do a laundry list of everything I disagree with him on every time I do a transcript?  Nope.  IMO, it would only serve to distract from the main point of his final New Rule each week.

          And actually, it turns out there's stuff I disagree with Jon about as well, but I don't feel the need to mention it every goddamn time I do a transcript.  The purpose is to spread an important message in that transcript to a wider audience that hadn't seen it, because it usually made some incredibly awesome arguments on a particular issue in a funny and satirical way.  Attacking the messenger only serves to distract from that message.

          I mean, you don't see me whining all over the place about you hyping a website that's attacked Elizabeth Warren as little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, do you?

      •  Is that why Greenwald deferred to W's judgment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PorridgeGun

        on Iraq, by his own admission?  (And that's the most generous spin one can afford Greenwald; the harsher spin is that he fully supported W's Iraq War.)

        GG deferred to W's judgment on the worst foreign policy decision since the Gulf of Tonkin, and yet GG has never deferred to President Obama's judgment on anything (he even denounced President Obama's decision to take down OBL in the manner it was done).

        GG has no credibility when it comes to his evaluations of the current President.

        •  If Hillary gets the nom in 2016 are you voting 3rd (0+ / 0-)

          party since she not only gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, but provided real support for the invasion by voting for the AUMF?  The other problem with this 20-20 hindsight sniping of Greenwald is that he wasn't a pundit or political junkie at the time.  Your "fully supported" is nothing more than the benefit of the doubt from a random attorney.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site